Daily Archives: February 14, 2012

In recent weeks, Colorado counties of Weld, Fremont and El Paso passed resolutions opposing sections 1021 and/or 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act – what some refer to as the “kidnapping provisions” of the act. And now, the town of Fairfax, California joined them in this stand by passing resolution #12-11.

It states, in part, that “we Strongly affirm our loyalty to the rights and liberties enshrined within the Constitution of the United States, including the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to trial.”

The town of Fairfax has an extensive history of protecting its residents’ civil rights and liberties. This stand is best embodied in its resolution rejecting the USA PATRIOT Act a few years ago, which led hundreds of other municipalities across the nation to emulate their example. The Fairfax resolution against the NDAA takes denouncing one step further by requiring non-compliance within the Town as well. It states that they will:

“Instruct all our Town of Fairfax agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel.”

Share this:

North Carolina Rep. Glen Bradley, (R), intends to introduce a resolution at the General Assembly’s “short session” to address provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes the “indefinite detention” of U.S. Citizens by declaring the United States a part of the “battlefield.”

The resolution that will be presented, NDAA RESOLUTION FOR NORTH CAROLINA STATE LEGISLATORS, states in no uncertain terms numerous violations of the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution, and then it concludes with what the state legislator by passing this resolution attend to do about it.

For the above and forgoing reasons, this Legislature expresses its belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

FURTHER, the Legislature expresses its sense that all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and are not enforceable in this state, and it is the express policy of state’s Legislature that no officer, employee, or agent of the state will implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and employment agreement, and will subject them to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

You and I make decisions every day to do the right thing, even when the benefit to us may not be quite so great as not doing the right thing.

Unfortunately the majority of our state legislators seem unable to do what you and I do every day.

For instance, the subcommittee of the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee had the chance to do the right thing on Wednesday to protect Tennesseans from unconstitutional encroachments of the federal government and resist the evil indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA by voting for HB2619/SB2669.

Instead, they chose to hem and haw and stall.

Van Irion, the Lead Counsel for the Liberty Legal Foundation and former congressional candidate, is one of the co-authors of HB2619 which went before the subcommittee. He testified before the subcommittee for about an hour. His report, along with a link to the video of the proceedings, is below: